Re:Is it really an incentive?
on
Pods Unite
·
· Score: 1
If someone buys your new VW, you can afford to give them an ipod. It must be a pretty good ad campainge if it's worthy of slashdot mention.
But you're right, Apple probably sold them the ipods at cost.
Re:Just wait for the game with this feature...
on
Mutating Animations
·
· Score: 1
That's a different thing. In that situation, they are programmed with AI, but they don't "learn".
In most games, there is no chance for the AI to learn anything before the game ends. Perhaps the AI for a Mortal Combat type game could learn something. The difficulty there would be keeping the computer from getting too good. Learning AI would be a cool idea for a long running online game as well.
FEED: In one of your keynote speeches to the Perl community, you note that you've tried to model the Perl movement on another movement that you're a member of: Christianity. How so?
WALL: That's more difficult to talk about, not because it's embarrassing but because it works at a lower level in my psyche. I was born and bred to it at that level. I've always been on the church scene, and I've seen healthy churches and I've seen sick churches. I have a low-down feel for when things are being healthy and when they're not, particularly in terms of the relationships between people...
A great deal of my theological thinking has been driven by the notion of trying to see truth from God's viewpoint... I consider the theory of evolution to be by and large proven. And if that's the case, then from God's viewpoint, that has to be desirable. Why would God want to do it that way? Why would God want to use a seemingly random process to come up with more complex organisms?
Well, it's a way of being creative. If you look at almost any game that people play, they are sitting there throwing dice. It's also how artists work, particularly fiction writers. A good artist blends random-seeming factors with intentional factors into a pleasing pattern. To me that's the mark of a better artist than somebody who can simply crank out a perfect picture of something you can see. Cameras can do that. But that's still the view people have of how God has to operate. They still think there's only one right way to make the universe, so this has to be it. Essentially that's depriving God of free will -- not to mention us!
Memory leaks don't crash the kernel, they just mean you have less memory to use for other stuff.
If you still experience problems enable "Load all symbols for debugging/kksymoops" under "Kernel hacking." Tt prints a stack dump that often gives you a pretty good idea where the bug is.
it was a bad ballot and a piss-poor Gore campaign that got Bush into office.
The Gore campaign focussed on the issues: "Vote Gore! He's the lesser of 2 evils." At the time, a lot of people didn't realise how important that would be.
It seems like 2.4 never really seemed "trustworthy", they kept making huge and highly experimental changes and 2.4 seemed just kind of like a work in progress for its entire run.
For many uses 2.4 was fine from the beginning... The 2.4 VM issues didn't really get sorted out until 2.4.14. After that it was pretty good.
There are still tons of minor glitches with 2.5, but nothing huge like the 2.4 VM. The big problems with 2.5 are the IDE layer and the TTY code.
Secondly, the only opinion that matters is that of a judge or a jury. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks.
That's exactly wrong. The big part of the SCO fiasco is generating FUD. They give interviews and press releases almost every day. The major purpose of the lawsuit is just to generate press.
Of course, the Linux community has also helped SCO generate more press.
Some of their quotes in interviews indicate that they didn't understand the implications of the GPL until around May 19. (Without the code being under the GPL, their actions would have merely been unethical instead of illegal).
The other interesting thing is that they are still distributing the code from their website.
That is ancient. These days patent issues surrounding the GPL are much clearer. Even RedHat has patented some of their kernel work.
I don't agree with software patents, copyright law is sufficient for software and software patents block first amendment rights. On the other hand, you have to apreciate creative use of the law to create more free software.
Here is the relevant quote from a Wired article: Since the lawsuit, people have "suggested that SCO doesn't own any Unix patents," Hunsaker said.
The Microsoft deal "is part of an ongoing effort to validate our intellectual property rights... (and) shows very clearly we own Unix patents because Microsoft just licensed them," Hunsaker said.
The truth however, is that Microsoft only licensed a single patent and not "patents". It a big secret which license Microsoft licensed. Although, SCO does own a few patents, the company doesn't own any relevant patents. The lawsuit is definately not about patents and only mentions patents in a random quote.
I wouldn't be surprised if SCO representatives told the reporter that the lawsuit was about patents.
It says pretty clearly that they purposely chose a less mature sample of open source software than they did last time. The point is, does open source software start out bug free or do the bugs get worked out with age?
Another thing I wonder about is the FSF policy of only accepting patches when the author transfers copyright to the FSF (fun question: why is the GPL not good enough for them?).
It lets them protect the software. The FSF deals with around a dozen GPL violations a year. They can go to the company in question and tell them, "Hey we can settle this out of court and public view and you won't be sued. We just want you to release the source." With the kernel no one owns the source, so no one can make a deal like that.
If you violate the GPL for the kernel thousands of people could sue.
"The paragraph containing "As to its trade secret claims, which are the only claims actually made in the lawsuit against IBM, there remains the simple fact that SCO has for years distributed copies of the kernel, Linux, as part of GNU/Linux free software systems." concerns me.
What is omitted from this discussion, and what Eben certainly must already know, is that if SCO redistributes in good faith Free products that it receives from the community, then the illegal inclusion by a third party of material copyrighted by SCO does not in any way lessen SCO's claim to that copyright."
The paragraph is about trade secrets not copyright. If SCO told everyone the secrets they cannot complain about IBM doing the same. AT&T's license with IBM had a clause explicitly stating as much. (download it from sco.com)
>>you can't use the other 30000 lines of code because SCO's codes is not GPL'd
The kernel is a hundred times larger than that. I haven't counted, but I've heard that 2.5 is almost up to 5 million lines of code. Every month kernel developers write or modify around 50,000 lines of code.
SCO can take their 83 lines of code and put it where the sun don't shine.
Cease production of their unprofitable Linux distribution,admit to copyright infringement against a bunch of kernel hackers who are unlikely to bring suit against them, and be able to sue IBM for billions of dollars?
Technically they can't admit to it, until they do something wrong. So far, they have made the source available under the terms of the GPL. You can still download the kernel from their website if you want to check it out. All the paperwork is in order.
Your scenario would look something like this.
SCO: "Your honour, RedHat has to pay us one billion dollars because they violated our copyright." RedHat: "The source was licensed to us from you under the terms of the GPL". SCO: "We didn't mean to license it under the GPL. We were trying to violate your copyright." Judge: "... SCO, you are morons. You're lucky I don't come down there and smack you upside the head."
SCO would have had a better case, if they had not known about the copyright infringement but they still would have faced the threat of counter lawsuits if they tried to collect damages.
It's red hat advanced server we're talking about not regular RedHat.
It's pretty stupid to pay $2500 for a well tested kernel with a support contract and then go and install a random Linus kernel that might not even compile.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone buys your new VW, you can afford to give them an ipod. It must be a pretty good ad campainge if it's worthy of slashdot mention.
But you're right, Apple probably sold them the ipods at cost.
That's a different thing. In that situation, they are programmed with AI, but they don't "learn".
In most games, there is no chance for the AI to learn anything before the game ends. Perhaps the AI for a Mortal Combat type game could learn something. The difficulty there would be keeping the computer from getting too good. Learning AI would be a cool idea for a long running online game as well.
http://www.techgnosis.com/wall1.html
Linus actually said "we" and not "I". And by "we" he, of course, meant Andrea Arcangeli.
Here is the link where Andrea says he had IBM send Linus a copy of the RCU patent paper work.
Memory leaks don't crash the kernel, they just mean you have less memory to use for other stuff.
If you still experience problems enable "Load all symbols for debugging/kksymoops" under "Kernel hacking." Tt prints a stack dump that often gives you a pretty good idea where the bug is.
Feel free to report it to bugzilla.kernel.org
Take a look at /var/log/messages. Sometimes the system is able to save a message to disk before locking up.
it was a bad ballot and a piss-poor Gore campaign that got Bush into office.
The Gore campaign focussed on the issues: "Vote Gore! He's the lesser of 2 evils." At the time, a lot of people didn't realise how important that would be.
It seems like 2.4 never really seemed "trustworthy", they kept making huge and highly experimental changes and 2.4 seemed just kind of like a work in progress for its entire run.
For many uses 2.4 was fine from the beginning... The 2.4 VM issues didn't really get sorted out until 2.4.14. After that it was pretty good.
There are still tons of minor glitches with 2.5, but nothing huge like the 2.4 VM. The big problems with 2.5 are the IDE layer and the TTY code.
Secondly, the only opinion that matters is that of a judge or a jury. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks.
That's exactly wrong. The big part of the SCO fiasco is generating FUD. They give interviews and press releases almost every day. The major purpose of the lawsuit is just to generate press.
Of course, the Linux community has also helped SCO generate more press.
Some of their quotes in interviews indicate that they didn't understand the implications of the GPL until around May 19. (Without the code being under the GPL, their actions would have merely been unethical instead of illegal).
The other interesting thing is that they are still distributing the code from their website.
Their behaviorial profiles may have been slightly off target, but the sketch was pretty good.
Novel never licensed any UNIX patents to SCO. That was specifically excluded from the contract.
It's not clear that Microsoft licensed a "UNIX patent". It's not clear which patent they licensed at all.
That is ancient. These days patent issues surrounding the GPL are much clearer. Even RedHat has patented some of their kernel work.
I don't agree with software patents, copyright law is sufficient for software and software patents block first amendment rights. On the other hand, you have to apreciate creative use of the law to create more free software.
They claim to own patents.
Here is the relevant quote from a Wired article:
Since the lawsuit, people have "suggested that SCO doesn't own any Unix patents," Hunsaker said.
The Microsoft deal "is part of an ongoing effort to validate our intellectual property rights... (and) shows very clearly we own Unix patents because Microsoft just licensed them," Hunsaker said.
The truth however, is that Microsoft only licensed a single patent and not "patents". It a big secret which license Microsoft licensed. Although, SCO does own a few patents, the company doesn't own any relevant patents. The lawsuit is definately not about patents and only mentions patents in a random quote.
I wouldn't be surprised if SCO representatives told the reporter that the lawsuit was about patents.
FUD??? Gimme a break.
It says pretty clearly that they purposely chose a less mature sample of open source software than they did last time. The point is, does open source software start out bug free or do the bugs get worked out with age?
Another thing I wonder about is the FSF policy of only accepting patches when the author transfers copyright to the FSF (fun question: why is the GPL not good enough for them?).
It lets them protect the software. The FSF deals with around a dozen GPL violations a year. They can go to the company in question and tell them, "Hey we can settle this out of court and public view and you won't be sued. We just want you to release the source." With the kernel no one owns the source, so no one can make a deal like that.
If you violate the GPL for the kernel thousands of people could sue.
"The paragraph containing "As to its trade secret claims, which are the only claims actually made in the lawsuit against IBM, there remains the simple fact that SCO has for years distributed copies of the kernel, Linux, as part of GNU/Linux free software systems." concerns me.
What is omitted from this discussion, and what Eben certainly must already know, is that if SCO redistributes in good faith Free products that it receives from the community, then the illegal inclusion by a third party of material copyrighted by SCO does not in any way lessen SCO's claim to that copyright."
The paragraph is about trade secrets not copyright. If SCO told everyone the secrets they cannot complain about IBM doing the same. AT&T's license with IBM had a clause explicitly stating as much. (download it from sco.com)
SCO: "We had no right to license it under the GPL, we had no license ourselves."
They do have a license.
>>you can't use the other 30000 lines of code because SCO's codes is not GPL'd
The kernel is a hundred times larger than that. I haven't counted, but I've heard that 2.5 is almost up to 5 million lines of code. Every month kernel developers write or modify around 50,000 lines of code.
SCO can take their 83 lines of code and put it where the sun don't shine.
"I allege that SCO is full of it" -Linus
Linus has a reality field around him.
Everyone else goes overboard about stuff like SCO, Microsoft or Linux on the desktop. Linus keeps it real.
Cease production of their unprofitable Linux distribution,admit to copyright infringement against a bunch of kernel hackers who are unlikely to bring suit against them, and be able to sue IBM for billions of dollars?
Technically they can't admit to it, until they do something wrong. So far, they have made the source available under the terms of the GPL. You can still download the kernel from their website if you want to check it out. All the paperwork is in order.
Your scenario would look something like this.
SCO: "Your honour, RedHat has to pay us one billion dollars because they violated our copyright."
RedHat: "The source was licensed to us from you under the terms of the GPL".
SCO: "We didn't mean to license it under the GPL. We were trying to violate your copyright."
Judge: "... SCO, you are morons. You're lucky I don't come down there and smack you upside the head."
SCO would have had a better case, if they had not known about the copyright infringement but they still would have faced the threat of counter lawsuits if they tried to collect damages.
It's red hat advanced server we're talking about not regular RedHat.
It's pretty stupid to pay $2500 for a well tested kernel with a support contract and then go and install a random Linus kernel that might not even compile.
But there is IPR so the GPL does depend on copyright laws to defend itself. And we will defend ourselves.
That's the message we have to take to the press.
SCO loves Sun more than anyone else. Apparently Sun has paid over $100 mil through the years.
AIX first, then Linux, then BSD, then Apple and then Microsoft. It seems Microsoft paid $30 mil for just an application layer... link to byte article